The rules of the new "Connected work are detrimental to the right to work
Dear former colleagues,
Neo - approved "Linked work" was "rejected" by the Supreme Court, by order No. 2112 of 28.01.2011 of the 4th Sec. Civil ordered the transmission of documents to the Constitutional Court and pleaded not manifestly unfounded, among others, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 32, paragraph 5, of L. 11/04/2010 No 183, which states: "In cases of conversion of fixed-term contract, the court condemns the employer to the worker's compensation by establishing an allowance comprehensive in size between a minimum of 2.5 and a maximum of 12 months final total remuneration in fact taken into account the criteria set out in Article 8 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604 ".
according to the judges of legitimacy " the damage sustained by the employee as a result of the unlawful placing of the contract term is at least equal to the wages lost because of unnecessary supply of its performance until the actual release to service. The damage, while uncertain the course of the process and not even when the sentence is issued, increases with the passage of time and size also appear not exactly predictable. "
Again, the order under review states that compensation is not proportionate to the amount of damage can induce the employer to continue in the failure (by prolonging the process or evading the execution of the sentence ).
Therefore, in the opinion of the Supreme Court "is undermined citizens' right to work (art. 4 of the Constitution) and undermines the effectiveness of judicial protection, with damage that increases with the duration of the process, contrary to the principle asserted by any secular doctrine processualism, today expressed by the Articles. 24 and 111, second paragraph of the Constitution, which requires the accurate, as far as practicable, match awarded loss to injury of the individual right and the remedy can be obtained in court " .
The Supreme Court has recognized, also, a contrast with the art. 117, 1 st paragraph of the Constitution because there would be an unwarranted intrusion of the legislative power in the administration of justice in order to influence the decision of a single dispute, in violation of Article. 6, first paragraph, of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects the right of every person to due process (ratified by Italy with the signing of that Convention).
seriously doubted that the rule in question can never be applied to our case, since there is no fixed-term contract to be converted, in fact, as we have requested that the CFL should be declared null and then a right from time INDETERMINATE ' beginning, we believe the compensation provided for in Article natural. 18 of the Statute of workers for unfair dismissal. However, the uncertainty of interpretation of the courts, believe that this ordinance makes us sleep more peacefully. Kisses.